-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Well it finally happened
- Thread starter t33j
- Start date
t33j
Regular Member
imported post
Sec. 29-73.1. Suspects to identify themselves.
(a) Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
(b) A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 41,880, § 1, 6-14-05)
Sec. 29-73.1. Suspects to identify themselves.
(a) Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
(b) A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 41,880, § 1, 6-14-05)
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
As you were not suspected of any wrongdoing and the first officer said you were not being detained you were not obligated under any color of law to identify yourself.
Period.
Voice recorders.
As you were not suspected of any wrongdoing and the first officer said you were not being detained you were not obligated under any color of law to identify yourself.
Period.
Voice recorders.
imported post
t33j wrote:
Again...If they haven't been granted the authority to enact it, it isn't real.
This thing's been hashed out until it's dead and decomposed.
Richmond tried it and couldn't enforce it.
Norfolk tried it and couldn't enforce it
I think Fairfax tried it and a host of small towns and counties.
No one gets charged with no ID because in Va, you don't have to have ID.
t33j wrote:
That is a Norfolk ordnance.
Again...If they haven't been granted the authority to enact it, it isn't real.
This thing's been hashed out until it's dead and decomposed.
Richmond tried it and couldn't enforce it.
Norfolk tried it and couldn't enforce it
I think Fairfax tried it and a host of small towns and counties.
No one gets charged with no ID because in Va, you don't have to have ID.
t33j
Regular Member
imported post
Alright well I'm going to submit a FOIA request. I used the generator here -> http://opengovva.org/virginias-foia-resources/create-foia-request-letter
To: Old Dominion University Police Department
Dear Custodian of Records for the Old Dominion University Police Department
I am making a request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§2.2-3700, et seq.).
I would like copies of the following records relating to the events leading up to the encounter with myself around 5:28 pm on Thursday March 25th, 2010:
Any radio traffic to include: dispatch, inter-officer communication
Any phone calls
Dash-camera video from Officer XXXXX vehicle (I have the whole thing recorded. Should I bother with video?)
Pursuant to the Act, I request that within five working days you (a) provide me with all the records I request; (b) if the records are exempt from disclosure, identify which records are going to be withheld pursuant to which specific Code provision; or (c) if the records will be provided in part, identify which records are being withheld pursuant to which specific Code provision, and release the remaining, nonexempt records to me.
If it is not practically possible to provide the records within five working days, please notify me that you will need an additional seven working days, as provided in the Act.
As provided by FOIA, please provide an estimate of the costs of meeting my request before undertaking the task. Also, an acknowledgement of receipt of this request would be appreciated.
If you have questions concerning my request, please contact me at XXXXX so that we can work something out.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
Alright well I'm going to submit a FOIA request. I used the generator here -> http://opengovva.org/virginias-foia-resources/create-foia-request-letter
To: Old Dominion University Police Department
Dear Custodian of Records for the Old Dominion University Police Department
I am making a request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§2.2-3700, et seq.).
I would like copies of the following records relating to the events leading up to the encounter with myself around 5:28 pm on Thursday March 25th, 2010:
Any radio traffic to include: dispatch, inter-officer communication
Any phone calls
Dash-camera video from Officer XXXXX vehicle (I have the whole thing recorded. Should I bother with video?)
Pursuant to the Act, I request that within five working days you (a) provide me with all the records I request; (b) if the records are exempt from disclosure, identify which records are going to be withheld pursuant to which specific Code provision; or (c) if the records will be provided in part, identify which records are being withheld pursuant to which specific Code provision, and release the remaining, nonexempt records to me.
If it is not practically possible to provide the records within five working days, please notify me that you will need an additional seven working days, as provided in the Act.
As provided by FOIA, please provide an estimate of the costs of meeting my request before undertaking the task. Also, an acknowledgement of receipt of this request would be appreciated.
If you have questions concerning my request, please contact me at XXXXX so that we can work something out.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
imported post
Looks good. You may also want to ask for any text messages or other electronic communication and a copy of the contact card, incident report or other written documents.
The text messages may be interesting.
Looks good. You may also want to ask for any text messages or other electronic communication and a copy of the contact card, incident report or other written documents.
The text messages may be interesting.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
FOIA is a very good wake up call for Norfolk PD. This means paperworkfor the supervisors, and they hate that.
Haven't OCd there since BHO came to town.
Hang in there t33j, the open carry cavalry will arrive at ODU in April! Maybe we can have some OC lunchtime events around ODU. Should be fun.
FOIA is a very good wake up call for Norfolk PD. This means paperworkfor the supervisors, and they hate that.
Haven't OCd there since BHO came to town.
Hang in there t33j, the open carry cavalry will arrive at ODU in April! Maybe we can have some OC lunchtime events around ODU. Should be fun.
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Thundar wrote:
What does that mean?
imported post
DrMark wrote:
Droves of loyal supporters of lawful OC will arrive in the vicinity of ODU for impropmtu (if you believe in the Easter Bunny) meetings on the street, and strolls along the sidewalks, along with general hanging out on streetcorners and in the doorways of local businesses.
Please check in with the Random Act Coordinator to pick up your assigned location and list of activities to "commit".:lol:
Will someone please volunteer to hold Peter Nap's hand as he crosses the street? Last time he got lost in the crosswalk and was not seen for days.
stay safe.
skidmark
DrMark wrote:
Droves of loyal supporters of lawful OC will arrive in the vicinity of ODU for impropmtu (if you believe in the Easter Bunny) meetings on the street, and strolls along the sidewalks, along with general hanging out on streetcorners and in the doorways of local businesses.
Please check in with the Random Act Coordinator to pick up your assigned location and list of activities to "commit".:lol:
Will someone please volunteer to hold Peter Nap's hand as he crosses the street? Last time he got lost in the crosswalk and was not seen for days.
stay safe.
skidmark
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
TFred wrote:
richarcm wrote:
"I need to see your driver's license."
"Sorry, it's in my car." :celebrate
I had nothing better to do, so I wasted his time with logic circles.
TFred wrote:
Because of that illegal socket wrench in your back pocket. :lol:
richarcm wrote:
Yeah, I learned this one from other people BEFORE I was stopped by a Harrisonburg PD Sergeant for OCing.
"I need to see your driver's license."
"Sorry, it's in my car." :celebrate
I had nothing better to do, so I wasted his time with logic circles.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
NovaCop10 wrote:
More brilliance. See the 9th post down from the top of page one of this thread. I quoted text, gave the cite, and a link to the opinions themselves.
Unless you meant this post as in the post you quoted. In which case, where is the statement of law that would require a cite?
NovaCop10 wrote:
NovaCop10,
More brilliance. See the 9th post down from the top of page one of this thread. I quoted text, gave the cite, and a link to the opinions themselves.
Unless you meant this post as in the post you quoted. In which case, where is the statement of law that would require a cite?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
There is a difference between providing an ID document like a driver's license, and verbally IDing oneself.
Kolender v Lawson[suP]1[/suP] shot down the California statute because it was "unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do [what kind of ID document must be supplied] in order to satisfy the statute." The statute was not shot down based on opposition to "papers, please comrade." I have come across at least one state stop-and-identify statute that requires a person to hand over his state ID card or driver's license if he has it on him, the cop requests it, and the cop has reasonable suspicion. (Neat little trick for getting around the Kolender problem and people who may not have ID on them).
I would, however, love to see the VA case law or statute invalidating localstop-and-identify ordinances. Tell me more.
1. http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html
peter nap wrote:
There is a difference between providing an ID document like a driver's license, and verbally IDing oneself.
Kolender v Lawson[suP]1[/suP] shot down the California statute because it was "unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do [what kind of ID document must be supplied] in order to satisfy the statute." The statute was not shot down based on opposition to "papers, please comrade." I have come across at least one state stop-and-identify statute that requires a person to hand over his state ID card or driver's license if he has it on him, the cop requests it, and the cop has reasonable suspicion. (Neat little trick for getting around the Kolender problem and people who may not have ID on them).
I would, however, love to see the VA case law or statute invalidating localstop-and-identify ordinances. Tell me more.
1. http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html
imported post
Citizen wrote:
When they tried it in Richmond the GD Judges told them not to bother.
This is still a Dillon Rule state and there just isn't any authorization I can find. It sure isn't a zoning issue.
Citizen wrote:
Where do you find the authority for a locality in Va to pass a stop and identify law Citizen?
When they tried it in Richmond the GD Judges told them not to bother.
This is still a Dillon Rule state and there just isn't any authorization I can find. It sure isn't a zoning issue.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
NovaCop10 wrote:
Ignore this. We have multiple examples of police departments doing nothing over a verbal complaint. Heck we have examples of police doing nothing over a written complaint for that matter.
Cops love verbal complaints. No messy paperwork. No record. Easy to sweep under the rug. And this according to a cop forum member, if I recall.
Always a written complaint. It lets them know you are serious. It also starts a paper trail/history in case it happens more than once. A lawyer member pointed out that the paper record of multiple instances helps with a civil rights violation lawsuit if you keep getting stopped illegally.
Also, if you cite your case law carefully, it lets the cops know something. It tells them you know. Now, all of a sudden there is a citizen who knows where their limits are. Suddenly, they have to tread carefully. You see, many people have no idea about reasonable suspicion, stop-and-identify, etc. Too many cops count on this ignorance to let them get away with routine violations (like ID document demands without legal authority: "I wanna see some ID!") But, now. "Oh, snit! Somebody knows. Gotta be careful who we try that trick on."
And, you might actually be helping the supervisory cops. You never know. That might be a problem cop, already warned about screwing up, and the supervisors just need one or two more documented screw-ups to turn him into a mall security guard.
NovaCop10 wrote:
T33J,
Ignore this. We have multiple examples of police departments doing nothing over a verbal complaint. Heck we have examples of police doing nothing over a written complaint for that matter.
Cops love verbal complaints. No messy paperwork. No record. Easy to sweep under the rug. And this according to a cop forum member, if I recall.
Always a written complaint. It lets them know you are serious. It also starts a paper trail/history in case it happens more than once. A lawyer member pointed out that the paper record of multiple instances helps with a civil rights violation lawsuit if you keep getting stopped illegally.
Also, if you cite your case law carefully, it lets the cops know something. It tells them you know. Now, all of a sudden there is a citizen who knows where their limits are. Suddenly, they have to tread carefully. You see, many people have no idea about reasonable suspicion, stop-and-identify, etc. Too many cops count on this ignorance to let them get away with routine violations (like ID document demands without legal authority: "I wanna see some ID!") But, now. "Oh, snit! Somebody knows. Gotta be careful who we try that trick on."
And, you might actually be helping the supervisory cops. You never know. That might be a problem cop, already warned about screwing up, and the supervisors just need one or two more documented screw-ups to turn him into a mall security guard.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Good point! I had completely forgotten.
I wonder if there is a catch-all phrasing in the statute or charters for city and county governments regarding criminal ordinances?My knowledge is deficient in this area.
peter nap wrote:
Good point! I had completely forgotten.
I wonder if there is a catch-all phrasing in the statute or charters for city and county governments regarding criminal ordinances?My knowledge is deficient in this area.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Most Municipalities will actually reference the particular state statute when they enter a Criminal Ordnance.
Citizen wrote:
Not that I've found. In the localities that tried stop and identify, and lost every one, they switched to refusing to obey a command or something like that. Lost their butts again...No they tried Obstruction of Justice. (Can't remember anything anymore):lol:
Most Municipalities will actually reference the particular state statute when they enter a Criminal Ordnance.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
AbNo wrote:
TFred
AbNo wrote:
Ha ha, that's what I started doing when my local Walmart started demanding my DL to make a credit card purchase! Of course I turned them in to MasterCard for violating their vendor agreement. They finally did stop.Yeah, I learned this one from other people BEFORE I was stopped by a Harrisonburg PD Sergeant for OCing.
"I need to see your driver's license."
"Sorry, it's in my car." :celebrate
I had nothing better to do, so I wasted his time with logic circles.
TFred
johnfenter
Regular Member
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Thundar wrote:
I think you meant FOIA is a very good wake up call for ODU PD. Norfolk PD, for once, was not involved in this incident.document.write('/images/emoticons/smile.gif');FOIA is a very good wake up call for Norfolk PD. This means paperworkfor the supervisors, and they hate that.
Haven't OCd there since BHO came to town.
Hang in there t33j, the open carry cavalry will arrive at ODU in April! Maybe we can have some OC lunchtime events around ODU. Should be fun.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
skidmark wrote:
I like to get in the idea that I do not consent (politely) while still complying.
I am thinking thatrefusing consent throws the onus on him to have all his legal ducks in a row. If he still demands that I identify myself over top of my refused consent, andI later find out he didn't have statutory authority for the demand, then its my turn by filing a formal complaint.
"Officer,since you have demanded my ID in a way that makes me think compliance may be compelled,I will provide it to you. However, I do not consent."
skidmark wrote:
I like to get in the idea that I do not consent (politely) while still complying.
I am thinking thatrefusing consent throws the onus on him to have all his legal ducks in a row. If he still demands that I identify myself over top of my refused consent, andI later find out he didn't have statutory authority for the demand, then its my turn by filing a formal complaint.
"Officer,since you have demanded my ID in a way that makes me think compliance may be compelled,I will provide it to you. However, I do not consent."